A developing application of federal forced-labor law raises a question Orthodox Jewish institutions should take seriously: When can the powerful influence of a religious leader or close-knit community be treated by the government as evidence of psychological coercion?

The question involves concepts often described as “coercive control.” At their core, these concepts are neither absurd nor something religious people should reflexively oppose. People can be controlled without being locked in a room or threatened with physical violence. Financial dependence, intimidation, psychological pressure, and threats to important relationships can all be used abusively. Laws addressing domestic violence, trafficking and forced labor need to recognize that reality.

The difficulty begins when courts and prosecutors move from identifying objectively coercive conduct to interpreting the psychological influence one person or community exercises over another. For religious minorities, that distinction can become extraordinarily consequential.

Orthodox Jewish life offers a clear example. Observant Jews may seek guidance from rabbis, leaders, and teachers about marriage, children, education, livelihood, and deeply personal matters. Religious obligations govern aspects of life that secular society generally considers private. Families and communities influence whom people marry, where they live, and how they educate their children. A religious court (beis din) can carry enormous authority. Communal standing matters, and exclusion from a close-knit religious community can be devastating.

None of this means religious authority cannot be abused. It can. Religious liberty cannot provide immunity for trafficking, violence, fraud, or forced labor. The harder question is when influence, attachment and fear of social or spiritual consequences become sufficiently coercive to satisfy the requirements of criminal law. A recent federal forced-labor prosecution in Brooklyn illustrates why that question deserves attention.

The defendants were leaders of OneTaste, a spiritual and meditation organization whose practices many Orthodox Jews would undoubtedly find unfamiliar and perhaps even objectionable. One need not approve of the organization or its practices to examine the prosecution’s implications.

At trial, witnesses testified that they voluntarily entered the community. They described choosing to participate, receiving benefits from their involvement and, yes, having the ability to leave. Some continued aspects of the practices after their formal involvement with the organization ended. Yet looking back years later, witnesses also described experiences in which they had once willingly participated as manipulative,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)